Don't merge too many skills. Picking pockets and opening locks are totally differant. And bluffing isn't gonna get you a wallet. My highest praise for 3.5 is the skills list. And the fact that you can add your own for role-play potential. Cooking is a good example. Filleting fish or stringing a bow, or seduction. These are just odd things that characters with backgrounds may have. Though, one could simplify string a bow in a repair skill or craft.
Don't give out roles. Roles are for militairy-style campaigns- not adventuring. Make character creating and growth customizable.
It may simplify things but takes away too much realism. Don't let players shoot through other players without a chance of nailing your allie. It's all part of strategy. A 1 on a 20 should spell "O Ooh!"
Please add new races and classes in PHBs. It doesn't feel the same to play a drpw without the full PHB writeup. (or other races).
Don't deny the players some exciting pc options. I for one, was relieved to see 4e add some new options. It's just that they made those options restricted and got rid of two others. I like Gnomes. My big gripe here is that 3.5 didn't have any core races in the PHB that didn't look human. I'd love an animal-like race or monstrous race added to the Core. I'm human and see them everywhere. So, I'd like to play something 'differant'- though I do love Drow. Sorry, gamers that think they should just be villians. But almost every group i've gamed with has had one (and not me). For animal and monstrous; catpeople (tabaxi), Lupin, Hobgoblins, Orcs, and Lizardpeople (I'm trying to avoid useing folk- I think oldpeople when I hear folks), Brownies, and Nezumi would make good pc races.
One problem with 3.5 was that we depended so much on Magic Items to raise our AC. Thereshould be a way to get an AC in the twenties with training and feats. And maybe add more armor types. What if your Dex. bonus added 2 to your AC per increment instead of 1?
Give half-plate a dex bonus if full-plate gets one. No one I game with past level 2 every buys half-plate. And most players tend to have some sort of Dex bonus.
The following isn't necessary, but I want to chuck it out there: get some new popular class ideas out there as quickly as convienant. Popular classes like Pirates, Ninjas, Samarai, Necromancer, Illusionist, and Knight are all popular.
Brand new classes along with oldones. Keep 'em coming or updated. Hexblades, beguilers, favored souls, and beastmasters wee all good. I wouldn't mind some Shadoweavers, Reavers, Mindmages, or Pirates (Swashbuckler was kinda a goodly pirate I guess). Whatever. New stuff!!!
Don't bring back mini-max classes like Crusader until they're modified. We had one in our last 3.5 party and he could do everything. It was offsetting.
I think if there's a worry about not starting with enough hitpoints that could be easily solved: 10+Class+or- Con. Mod. There's plenty! But then some monsters should have more. A 1st level character would not hesitate to dismantle a Gnoll or bugbear if he/she had 22 hitpoints. Or the monsters will need more. (I remember 1st level Wizards with 1 hp. 1st ed.) Ouch! Killed by a bee sting.
Anyhow, that's all I got for now. Except- please don't have too many alternate rules. It's difficult enough to look up some of the core rules. And everyone likes to pull out this or that book and state a rule variant or read the same rule a differant way and give the DM grief. Keep rules well defined!
Thanks. I think it's great that team Paizo cares enough to listen to our groaning!!!
I agree that more choices = better. I have never liked the idea of consolidating the skills, nor the idea of assigning a role to a character just because of his or her class. You should be able to try to build a character to fulfill any role from any class, if you want to - you may be less effective, but so what? Why not have the ability to do something different? Simplifying the system the way 4e did removes a lot of choice, and that just isn't what I want from the game. No disrespect to those who prefer 4e, I'm just sayin'.
Um, can that be edited a bit for clarity? I'm not sure what you're trying to say because it all runs together.
I disagree strongly here. One of the things I do like about 4E is the skills list, because with the exception of Endurance, you get the idea that most of the skills are useful. 3.5 had way too many skills and far too much crap. My biggest beef with 3.5 was the vast number of newbie traps that were present in the system, and the skill list was no exception.Most of the time the 3.5 skill system was just an excuse to say "Ok, make a [pick some obscure skill] check. Oh you don't have it? Too bad for you."
You never got enough skill points to get all that stuff and it was annoying picking all the subskills. I'm cool with just combining the rarely used skills into one master skill. Like just having thievery for disable device and forgery. Also skills like use rope really need to go, that should just be a subset skill use of climb.
And I like the 4E combining of spot/search/listen into perception.
3.5 had way too many skills. This is supposed to be D&D, not GURPS.
But nobody forced you to put ranks in any "useless" skills.
Why don't we just say that everybody has all skills, and your ranks are equal to your class levels? The only difference then would be the ability modifier. That would certainly make it more simple, it would scale with level, and nobody would ever have to put any ranks in any skills they don't like. I think it's a terrible solution, but it seems to be the logical conclusion of the argument to reduce the skill list.
In real life it's impossible to master every skill. And it should be in the game, too. Your character shouldn't be able to do *everything*. Now, if your DM is constantly requiring you to make basketweaving chacks or suffer damage, then you have a crappy DM. On the other hand, if I want to make a character that happens to specialize in some skill that you deem useless, I don't see why I should be denied that choice.
Actually, in regards to some of the skills consolidation: a thorough reading of the Perception skill (for instance) shows that far more depth has been added than taken away here. Now all the senses are appropriately represented. In this case the consolidation makes perfect sense.
In other cases however (like Jump now being based on Dex) are going too far and not really well thought through.
|
Pathfidner already consolidated the skills mostly well
except jump :P
but thievery is a "ridiculous" skill... as much as dungeonering (i hate that knowledge) at least in name... in escense i give them only knowledge of caves, speleology and a few things taht live down below... not what they think the name gives them... the knowledge should be called speleology
and yes a players hould not be encased in a role just for his class... actually my cleric is almost like the paladin... she is in the forefront of every batlle because we are full of casters and rogues... so she and the paladin do all the close job... and at least once they had to cure her before she went to far into negative hp for an agressive vanguard
also i ask for more skills for all classes, not just consolidate... fighters, sorcerers, clerics, paladins and wizards should have more skill than 2 + int mod
In real life it's impossible to master every skill. And it should be in the game, too. Your character shouldn't be able to do *everything*. Now, if your DM is constantly requiring you to make basketweaving chacks or suffer damage, then you have a crappy DM. On the other hand, if I want to make a character that happens to specialize in some skill that you deem useless, I don't see why I should be denied that choice.
-Purinadragonchow.
I agree with you.
Part of the fun of leveling is putting ranks in skills. Not having it done for you, having your skill options limited, or over condenced to fit with a video game-like atmostere.
I agree about Dungeoneering, too. A person that knows about dungeons may know about caverns a bit, but they won't necessarily know about The Underdark. That should be a Geography check.
4e isn't a bad game, but I hate leveling in it. Any creativity for my character is cut down with all the auto-selecting. What if I want to play a character that's clueless when it comes to spotting stuff? What if someone wants to play a blind cleric? Oooh, so clerics get ranks in Thievery?! They do in 4e. Again, one thing 3.5 had going for it was customization.
Again, I play both versions. I try to support the game which is Dungeons& Dragons. There's gonna be things I like and hate about each system.
Going back to races- I read the thread where everyone was posting new race concepts. i'd be surprised to see anything added in the Core PHB, but if they do add one, I hope it's not another half race. Those could easily be templates. We have half-elves (pretty humans) and half-orcs (ugly mean looking humans) already. No more please. No half-giant, ogre, illithad (heck no), or goblin. It's just too much. And it should be either drow (do to mass apeal) or a race that doesn't look human, but animal or monstrous. And not Dragonborn. The 4E team picked them already. There's plenty of other options. Oh, I think if Tieflings were core, then Aasimars (whatever they may be called) should too. But, again, while reading the Beta, I got the idea that they wanted to stick with the 3.5 options.